the greatful dead covered a much better range of genres (they even covered merle haggard!!!) they didnt suck balls live like the beatles did and one tour lasted longern the entire beatles run
I'm sorry, the Dead were often terrible live. I toured with them and some nights it was downright embarrassing.
The Dead were mostly players, not innovators. Don't get me wrong I loved them as friends and musicians, but they were nowhere near as creative and prolific as the Beatles.
By the by, almost all the SF rock bands of the mid 60's played country music for fun when off stage. We'd have great jams whenever two or more bands got together at a band house. The gear was always set up in a room, so anybody could go in and play, anytime.
I was with a band that had a gig that weekend. What's that mean, we were nobodies? Come on.
I am not saying there were not more prolific bands or many musicians with equal talent, but there have been very few that came close to Lennon/McCartney for durable song writing skills.
What do double and triple albums have to do with quality? I never said they made the most money (I believe that was Creedence) or did the most tours or even wrote the most songs, just that they were one of the most original and creative bands in history. Not too many other pop/rock bands have their music played regularly by the great symphony orchestras of the world.
Are there bands I like better? Yes, but that doesn't take anything away from the Fab Four.
I dont understand why the Beatles were so famous
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
the greatful dead covered a much better range of genres (they even covered merle haggard!!!) they didnt suck balls live like the beatles did and one tour lasted longern the entire beatles run
and where was the beatles durin woodstock anyhow?
--
thegypsysailor
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I'm sorry, the Dead were often terrible live. I toured with them and some nights it was downright embarrassing.
The Dead were mostly players, not innovators. Don't get me wrong I loved them as friends and musicians, but they were nowhere near as creative and prolific as the Beatles.
By the by, almost all the SF rock bands of the mid 60's played country music for fun when off stage. We'd have great jams whenever two or more bands got together at a band house. The gear was always set up in a room, so anybody could go in and play, anytime.
--
donteatstuffoffthesidewalk
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
how many double & triple live albums did the beatles produce?
they made a buncha weird noises and wrote nonsensical lyrics and the world kissed their asses
syd barret floyd was ten times better durin the same era...and then they got good in the 70s
and again where were the beatles durin woodstock?
--
thegypsysailor
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I was with a band that had a gig that weekend. What's that mean, we were nobodies? Come on.
I am not saying there were not more prolific bands or many musicians with equal talent, but there have been very few that came close to Lennon/McCartney for durable song writing skills.
What do double and triple albums have to do with quality? I never said they made the most money (I believe that was Creedence) or did the most tours or even wrote the most songs, just that they were one of the most original and creative bands in history. Not too many other pop/rock bands have their music played regularly by the great symphony orchestras of the world.
Are there bands I like better? Yes, but that doesn't take anything away from the Fab Four.
--
donteatstuffoffthesidewalk
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
just because edison patented and took credit for the lightbulb first dont mean that wed be livin in the dark today if he hadnt
so was yall country joe or a fish?
--
thegypsysailor
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
just a lowly roady.